Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2d 838
Michael F. Burns, with whom Bigos, Burns & Partington were on brief for
plaintiff, appellant.
Ira C. Lupu, Atty., Appellate Staff Civ. Div., with whom Stuart M.
Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln C. Almond, U.S. Atty., and Barbara L.
Herwig, Atty., Appellate Staff Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington,
D.C., were on brief for defendant, appellee.
Before CYR, Circuit Judge, and BOWNES and COFFIN, Senior Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment of the district court on the basis of that court's
reasoning on the issue of proximate cause. See Jacob v. Curt, 721 F.Supp.
1536, 1540-41 (D.R.I.1989). We add only the following brief remarks:1. We
reject appellant's contention that the district court improperly treated
defendant's motion for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) as a motion for
summary judgment under Rule 56. We read the court's opinion to hold that,
based on the allegations in the complaint, appellant failed as a matter of law to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A plaintiff is not entitled to
present affidavits and reach the summary judgment stage if her complaint, on
its face, reveals an inadequate basis for her claim. Although the district court
did refer to the "undisputed facts in the case," see 721 F.Supp. at 1540-41, there
is no indication that the court relied on any material outside the allegations of
the complaint, which included a lengthy recitation of facts.
3. In light of our disposition, we need not and do not reach issues concerning
the asserted constitutional right to medical treatment.
Affirmed.